THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DINESHBHAI BABUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - D K PARMAR — 38/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 75,352,351(3). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJBN010023002025

e-Filing Number

12-05-2025

Filing Number

38/2025

Filing Date

14-May-2025

Registration No

38/2025

Registration Date

14-May-2025

Court

DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR

Judge

2-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198065250140

Police Station

VALLABHIPUR POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 75,352,351(3)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 8,12,17

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. AGP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DINESHBHAI BABUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - D K PARMAR

  2. 2.HARESHBHAI BABUBHAI VAGHELA

    Adv. D K PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Sp. (POCSO) Case No. 38/2025 Court: Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Session Judge, Bhavnagar Date of Judgment: 07/04/2026 Accused: Dineshbhai Babubhai Vaghela and Hareshbhai Babubhai Vaghela Charges: Indian Penal Code Sections 75, 352, 351(3) and POCSO Act 2012, Sections 8, 12, 17 Decision: Both accused are ACQUITTED of all charges. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the victim's age at the time of the alleged offense and the credibility of key witnesses. The court noted insufficient corroborating evidence and gaps in the investigation despite detailed examination of testimonial and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    3rd Addl District Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  8. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  9. 20-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  10. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  11. 03-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  12. 16-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 06-Feb-2026

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  14. 20-Jan-2026

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 26-Dec-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 12-Dec-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 18-Oct-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 24-Sep-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 09-Sep-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 26-Aug-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    3rd Addl District Judge

  21. 14-Jul-2025

    Process To Accused

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 26-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 14-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 38/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Sp. (POCSO) Case No. 38/2025 Court: Special Judge (POCSO) & 3rd Additional Session Judge, Bhavnagar Date of Judgment: 07/04/2026 Accused: Dineshbhai Babubhai Vaghela and Hareshbhai Babubhai Vaghela Charges: Indian Penal Code Sections 75, 352, 351(3) and POCSO Act 2012, Sections 8, 12, 17 Decision: Both accused are ACQUITTED of all charges. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the victim's age at the time of the alleged offense and the credibility of key witnesses. The court noted insufficient corroborating evidence and gaps in the investigation despite detailed examination of testimonial and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case